And even if any of those features costed MS money to run, they wouldn't justify a $50 price. I have no objections to the quality of the service, it's simply not justifiable to charge for it at all - I'd complain just as hard whether it were $1 or $100.

Extra features cost money, not just to run, but to implement.

I'm quite happy with the service Microsoft offers and I'm also quite happy to continue paying them for their hard work. :shrug:

Ditto.

I couldn't shell out the cash for a PC upgrade, so I bought a 360 the day Oblivion came out.

It turned out to be the right choice in the long run, seeing as I really enjoy my 360. I had a PS3 for awhile when I lived with my brother. It's a great console, but really not for me. I prefer XBOX live to PSN as well.

So those features weren't paid for when you bought the console, or when you buy the games, or when you look at the ads on the service, or when you buy a game on the service, etc? I am most certainly a fan of paying for products, I am most certainly not a fan of paying a recurring fee for something whose costs per-person are dwarfed by the profit from the games I'm trying to play on them.

Cost of the console = hardware + software + research + advertising. Same goes for games. The cost of Xbox Live service isn't factored into the cost of the console at all. Just because you buy a console doesn't mean your service, any service, should be paid for. You wouldn't expect to buy a PC and then have your subscription to an MMO paid for life would you? Not that that would ever happen, but it's just an example.

Basically, paying for the console and paying for the service are two different things, you shouldn't expect to buy one and have all these great features for free. Just like you shouldn't expect to buy a smartphone and get the service for free.

Except that the servers for an MMO, and a cell network, both require substantial upkeep. Xbox live does not. I expect any service where any action I make on it either barely touches it, or actively costs me money, to not charge *as well as* advertise.

May I ask a question?

To use the XBox Live feature you have to pay 50$? Have I read that right?
Is this once or anual? Or how does this system work?

Thanks!

I've played the 360 and own a PS3 because of a couple of reasons.

1. Blu-Ray - Get me a Blu-Ray player + gaming console = double win imho. Best part is that is a high capacity storage disc format that is only going to get better. Heard they are already reaching up to 200GBs with higher end stuff which means prettier pixels.
2. Free Online Play - Love the fact that I don't have to pay a monthly fee in order to play online opposed to the 360. Best part is for the station store they have free service or premium member service with premium getting better stuff. However if I don't have the cash for premium service it's no big deal since things are still reasonably priced and online gaming is free.
3. Customization - This is where the PS3 really shined, but i'm not sure about it anymore since I think they took away the ability to put Linux on it. If this is still there or was there it would make this console a definite triple threat.

Only thing that svcks is no PS2 B/C, but they are starting to do some of this with certain games like God Of War.

M$ actually raised the price to $60 a year. Although, I can get a 12 month card for 40 bucks usually very easily.

You really should consider building a Gaming PC if you don't have one. You can build one that runs all current games on highest settings for 400 to 500 USD.

Well that may be pushing it a bit. I would say a good PC that can handle *most* games on max will be atleast $600 not including a decent monitor. But still a PC is definitely worth it.

I own a PS3 because it seems cheaper in the long run. Other than that, though, both consoles are nearly identical in my eyes.

Wrong, Xbox has to have servers to route hosting capabilities, and servers aren't cheap. Not on that scale.

Okay let's try and straighten this out:

PS3 has free online play.
You say the price for XBL is justified for "extra features".
You say those extra features are "cross game voice chat and XBL parties".

I'm not seeing the extra server upkeep here to justify the $60 a year price. Doesn't PS3 use servers too?

Yes, but you'll also notice that, as I continue to say, the PS3 lacks online features. As well, the PS3 now has a "premium membership" with the playstation plus subscription system. Granted it isn't paying for online, but it's another way that Sony uses to make money.

http://xboxversusplaystation.blogspot.com/2009/05/xbox-live-vs-playstation-network.html
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-xbox-live-and-playstation-network/

Does that make more sense?

Edit: I'm also curious as to how many people who say that the PS3 is better with the PSN without batting an eyelash have spent more than five minutes with a 360.

It's not that PSN is better, it's free. You get what you pay for. I'm cheap, I don't like paying monthly fees for gaming with friends = PS3.

Just my opinion. I generally go for single player games anyway. Not much of a big multiplayer fan here, plus I'm a big movie buff so the blu ray is a big factor for me.

If the XBL Silver account had online with no bells and whistles, and the extra features like Netflix/Parties stayed Gold-only, then I would have no problem with that. That's basically PSN Plus (only the features aren't as useless).


I own a 360, I do not own a PS3. I tend to take an objective look at these kinds of debates, forming my opinions on the facts.

Also I tend to buy subscription services one month at a time, I buy one month time cards for WoW to avoid a recurring plan. Now with XBL if you buy one month at a time, you end up paying double the price per year. Yeah, dike move there Microsoft.

I don't like the controller for the PS3 as much as the Xbox, however I like the PS3 for blu-ray and some pretty sweet exclusives. Still I go with Xbox because the controller feel is BIG.

I originally wanted a PS3 due to free PSN. But all of my friends and family own an Xbox 360 so that's what my grandpa got me. Can't really complain though since my mom's paying for XBL.

If I had to choose one of the two, I'd get the PS3. Because then I could be Folding@Home.

I built a rig for my cousin at a little less than $500 and it runs Crysis on max and all that jazz. However, you make a point that the monitor wasn't included, but then again the TV is not included with the console.

360 had a head start so it obviously has more games. PS3 has more exclusives coming out right now than 360 does. The 360 usually has better graphics in multiplatform games due to it being easier to develop for. PS3's exclusives have the best CONSOLE graphics ever(see Killzone 3, Uncharted, etc.) The PS3 is technically more powerful and uses a better disc medium so it technically should have better graphics but it is harder to develop for so 360 games tend to look better because they develop games on that first then port to PS3. I own all consoles and I must say the PS3 is better in my opinion, for the following reasons: 1. Free Online 2. MGS4 3. Blu Ray 4. More Powerful 5. Internet Browser 6. Backwards compatible with PS1 and PS2(Older models only) 7. And it has better exclusives(Opinion) 360 is also a great console but I prefer the PS3. Also I think PSN is better than Xbox Live because PSN seems to have better quality servers.

Debatable. Multiplatform games look pretty much identical on both platforms. Exclusives are obviously harder to compare since they're only on one console, but I wouldn't say one system is noticeably more powerful than the other.

I have both. The XBOX interface and way it manages profiles is done much better. However the PS3 online is free.

If I had to choose between the two.. I'd get neither.